jack0076970
(?)Community Member
Offline
- Posted: Mon, 23 Feb 2015 19:29:54 +0000
It will no doubt get moved again and that's ok... and yes it's ok to dislike, that's expected as well.
Original thread
the-mcdonald-mousetrap-abject-failure
Behe does get a bit of stick and yes he appears to have been made a laughing stock for the simple reason that evolution has no other real response it can make. Darwin foresaw the problems that IC would pose.
"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive slight modifications my theory would absolutely break down."
and while at the time he immediately added "But I can find out no such case", (for such was his understanding) he would have been humble and interested enough to appreciate the progression of understanding that Behe's work provided.
Gaia is an exemplary illustration of scientific confusion. On one hand you have the keyboard warriors who will proudly defend science as having all the answers to all the mysteries of the universe (they are here... I've seen them) and then there are the majority who will make allowances, and rightly so, for the advancement of scientific advancement of knowledge and understanding (which is applicable in most fields of endeavour) but then for fear of their world crumbling down baulk at the fear of moving past 1859 on this single point.
Again given the majority of responses so far and the general tone of Gaia I know what to expect from the peeps here and am not concerned so froth away.
Regardless of the bravado fronted, irreducible complexity is a reality of which there are countless examples and to which sciences actual efforts to respond (as opposed to the "scientific" community here) have been limp at best, scandalous and embarrassing at worst.
Original thread
the-mcdonald-mousetrap-abject-failure
Behe does get a bit of stick and yes he appears to have been made a laughing stock for the simple reason that evolution has no other real response it can make. Darwin foresaw the problems that IC would pose.
"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive slight modifications my theory would absolutely break down."
and while at the time he immediately added "But I can find out no such case", (for such was his understanding) he would have been humble and interested enough to appreciate the progression of understanding that Behe's work provided.
Gaia is an exemplary illustration of scientific confusion. On one hand you have the keyboard warriors who will proudly defend science as having all the answers to all the mysteries of the universe (they are here... I've seen them) and then there are the majority who will make allowances, and rightly so, for the advancement of scientific advancement of knowledge and understanding (which is applicable in most fields of endeavour) but then for fear of their world crumbling down baulk at the fear of moving past 1859 on this single point.
Again given the majority of responses so far and the general tone of Gaia I know what to expect from the peeps here and am not concerned so froth away.
Regardless of the bravado fronted, irreducible complexity is a reality of which there are countless examples and to which sciences actual efforts to respond (as opposed to the "scientific" community here) have been limp at best, scandalous and embarrassing at worst.
